Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of global businesses and organizations urges governments at COP30 to adopt a formal roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels and scaling renewables. The signatories argue that such a framework is essential to provide the policy certainty needed to unlock private investment, align financial flows with net-zero goals, and bridge the gap between political ambition and real-world implementation.

The Carbon Rating Framework, developed by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), aims to integrate emissions performance into financial decision-making by assigning companies a rating from CR1 (lowest emissions) to CR10 (highest emissions). Phase 2 involved testing this framework on a sample of 50 companies, using a weighted average of current emission intensity (70%) and projected intensity (30%) normalized by revenue. The testing demonstrated the framework's ability to differentiate emissions across diverse sectors, though it highlighted limitations regarding the availability of projected emissions data and the volatility of revenue as a normalization metric. Future directions include integrating Scope 3 emissions, aligning with India's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), and utilizing sector-specific intensity metrics.

The IISD response asserts that Equinor's application for the Rosebank field development ignores critical Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) guidance regarding downstream Scope 3 emissions. The document argues that the project is incompatible with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target, as no new oil and gas fields are needed or permissible in such scenarios. Furthermore, the IISD claims the project offers minimal economic benefit, potentially resulting in a net loss to the UK Treasury and providing negligible contributions to energy security.

The report finds that international reporting of military greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is generally poor, with significant under-reporting in data submitted to the UNFCCC. A comparison of five top military spenders showed that defence ministry reports for direct emissions were, on average, 95% higher than UNFCCC figures. The report highlights a critical lack of Scope 3 (supply-chain) reporting, noting that less than 10% of military carbon footprints typically appear in UNFCCC data. It identifies systemic loopholes in reporting guidelines and instances of 'greenwashing,' specifically by the UK military, and recommends mandatory, explicit military emissions reporting within National Inventory Reports.

The report argues that rapid methane abatement is a priority for transition finance due to its immediate impact on limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It analyzes the current financing landscape, noting a significant gap between the USD 9.6bn in private methane finance (2021/2022) and the estimated USD 48bn to USD 100bn required annually by 2030. Through case studies of 20 corporates, the report finds that while oil and gas firms generally integrate methane abatement into short-term strategies, agrifood firms struggle with supply chain tracking and specific targets. To address this, the report promotes the use of Use of Proceeds (UOP) and sustainability-linked instruments guided by Climate Bonds and Methane Finance Working Group (MFWG) criteria to ensure investments contribute to decarbonization without locking in high-carbon assets.

The briefing argues that proposed 'Omnibus I' amendments to weaken or delete Article 22 of the CS3D—which requires companies to adopt and implement 1.5°C-compatible climate transition plans (CTPs)—would contradict the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 2025 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ confirmed that States have a binding legal duty to regulate private sector emissions using 'stringent' due diligence. The authors warn that diluting these requirements would increase the liability risks for EU Member States, heighten the legal exposure of companies to climate litigation, and leave the final Omnibus I Directive vulnerable to legal challenges for failing to meet international and EU climate obligations.

Carbon Neobank is a digital financial vehicle designed to bridge the USD 331 billion SME finance gap in Africa by integrating international carbon markets into business banking. Headquartered in Kenya, it offers three primary products: receivables loans, unsecured working capital loans, and carbon-backed term loans, targeting a USD 1 billion total addressable market. The vehicle utilizes a digital-first model, leveraging a partnership with Ecobank for geographic reach across 33 countries and employing digital Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) to monetize emission reductions. A USD 10.8 million pilot is planned to demonstrate the model's ability to mobilize private capital and deliver climate outcomes, including an estimated 6.097 million tCO2e in emission reductions over 10 years. The bank specifically targets the agricultural sector and women-led businesses to promote an inclusive green transition.

The report argues that major steel companies, including ArcelorMittal, Nippon Steel, and POSCO, overlook methane emissions from coal mining in their Scope 3 disclosures. It highlights that these emissions, particularly from 'gassiest' Australian mines, significantly increase the climate impact of blast furnace-based steelmaking and are not mitigated by downstream technologies like hydrogen injection or CCUS.

The report finds that methane from Australian coking coal adds an average of 10-17% to the short-term climate impact of blast furnace-based steelmaking, with some 'super-emitting' mines potentially doubling this impact. It highlights significant underreporting of methane emissions in Australia, specifically citing the Hail Creek mine, and notes that leading steelmakers like ArcelorMittal, Nippon Steel, and POSCO fail to disclose the methane footprint of their coal supplies. The document argues that cutting coal mine methane is a cost-effective near-term decarbonisation step, as over half of these emissions are avoidable using existing technology.

Albert Heijn, the largest retailer in The Netherlands, has disclosed that methane accounted for approximately 14% of its total climate pollution last year as part of its Scope 3 emissions. This marks a first for major supermarkets, contradicting previous industry claims that such calculations were too complex. The author calls for Ahold Delhaize to extend this disclosure to its US-based brands and urges retailers to implement concrete reduction strategies, such as promoting plant-based alternatives and requiring suppliers to set methane targets.

India's export economy is increasingly vulnerable to carbon-based trade measures, with 68% of its exports going to countries committed to net zero. The report highlights that 7.5 million jobs are exposed to active Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAMs), and sectors like professional services are among the most carbon-intensive globally. To maintain competitiveness against rivals like Vietnam and China, the document argues India must accelerate grid decarbonisation and update its 2025 Nationally Determined Contribution.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) opposes the UK government's proposed reliance on market-based mechanisms and the VCMI Scope 3 Action Code of Practice, arguing that allowing carbon credits to 'close scope 3 emissions gaps' effectively legitimises offsetting and risks rewarding 'climate laggards'. CMW advocates for a 'contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model over offsetting and insetting, and suggests that the UK's Environmental Reporting Guidelines (ERG) should mandate, rather than encourage, the disclosure of carbon credit information. The document also recommends 'temperature-alignment claims' (specifically referencing 1.5°C) as a more precise alternative to 'Paris alignment' claims.

The briefing identifies the "Pennsylvania Plus" (Penn+) region—covering the Marcellus and Utica basins—as a prime location for a differentiated gas market due to its high supply of low-methane gas and strong infrastructure. It notes that while supply is ample, buyer demand is hindered by lack of awareness, reporting uncertainties, and perceived costs. The author urges corporate buyers to commit to low-leakage gas by 2030 and pilot transactions to catalyze supply-chain mitigation.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025 finds that none of the 20 assessed companies demonstrate a climate strategy of 'reasonable' or 'high' integrity. The report highlights that 2030 emission reduction targets are increasingly 'unfit for purpose' due to structural obstacles, including incomplete emissions disclosures and sector-specific accounting malpractices. In the tech sector, soaring energy demand from AI and a reliance on outdated market-based accounting for electricity undermine target credibility. The automotive sector shows inadequate progress in phasing out internal combustion engines, while the fashion sector lacks commitments to reduce overproduction. The agrifood sector is criticised for relying on undefined land-based carbon removals to obscure a lack of structural emission reductions. The report argues for the adoption of transition-specific alignment targets to complement general GHG targets.

The report finds that the five largest incumbent light-duty vehicle manufacturers are making inadequate progress in transitioning to electric mobility. Most assessed companies have 2030 emission reduction targets that are critically insufficient and long-term net-zero pledges that lack concrete substantiation. While some companies have committed to procuring near-zero emission steel and aluminium, other critical transitions, such as reducing battery production emissions and improving electric vehicle efficiency, are largely neglected. The analysis highlights a significant gap between corporate pledges and the 1.5°C-compatible pathways required for the passenger transport sector.

The report finds that the European car leasing sector is largely unaccountable for its climate impact, with widespread opacity in reporting and weak, short-term climate commitments. Despite leasing accounting for over half of new car registrations in the EU, most companies lack science-based targets or a commitment to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035. The authors argue that voluntary action is insufficient and call for binding CO2 emissions reduction targets and harmonized reporting through the forthcoming EU Fleets Regulation.

The Corporate Responsibility Monitor 2025 finds that the tech sector faces a credibility crisis as AI growth drives exponential energy demand and emissions. The report argues that current accounting practices, which favor market-based over location-based reporting, obscure the true environmental impact of tech giants. While some companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple show early leadership in renewable energy procurement and supply chain employment, the sector generally lacks transparency regarding third-party data centers, mineral sourcing, and device lifespans. The document calls for the GHG-Protocol and SBTi to mandate location-based reporting and for companies to adopt 24/7 renewable energy procurement targets to align with a 1.5°C pathway.

The document concludes that mandatory CRTP disclosures, based on IFRS S2 and the TPT Disclosure Framework, are unlikely to materially increase liability risks for companies and directors due to existing legal protections and the high evidentiary hurdle of proving dishonesty. It argues that such disclosures may actually reduce overall legal risk by promoting better compliance with existing duties and mitigating greenwashing claims.

The document describes how a global automaker used Climate TRACE and TASA Analytics data to move beyond coarse 'spend-based' emissions factors to granular, facility-level intelligence for steel and aluminium. By integrating Scope 1 and 2 emissions factors with rapid IO-LCA (rLCA) models, the project revealed significant emissions intensity variations across production methods and countries. Key findings highlight the potential for emissions reductions through increased scrap use in both steel and aluminium production and the inaccuracy of standard EEIO data in certain regions.

South Africa faces significant trade risks as its carbon-intensive export model clashes with global net zero targets and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAMs). Approximately 78% of its exports are sold to countries with net zero targets, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are exposed to CBAMs in the EU and UK. High embodied CO2 emissions in the basic metals and automotive sectors, combined with a carbon-intensive electricity grid, threaten competitiveness. However, the document notes South Africa's potential to pivot using its critical minerals and renewable energy resources, provided that international financial commitments like the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) are fulfilled.